Maka Kotto

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the comment made by my colleague opposite—and it is unfortunate he is not a sovereignist, because I would gladly welcome him into the fold—I would say that we are not so far apart in our social, economic and political thinking.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc talks and talks. The Bloc is not capable of forming the government. That is something we are tired of hearing in this House. We are in a democracy and I believe it is proper to respect this game, this modern-day jousting.

There are nations where people stagnate under dictatorship and where people are in prison for speaking out against their government. The Bloc does not speak for the sake of talking. The Bloc talks and offers solutions.

I can list the issues the Bloc has become involved in to give you an indication, whether with the previous government or the current government. Without the support of the Bloc Québécois in some issues, I do not think this government would still be here. I am just saying this as an aside.

I take exception to the fact that the Bloc Québécois is being impugned in this way. It is a clear indication that they do not understand the reason for the Bloc Québécois' presence in this House.

The Bloc Québécois was sent here by Quebeckers. Nearly half the population of Quebec sent us here to represent them because they have lost faith in Canadian federalism. When this party or the Liberal Party realizes and accepts that, perhaps then we can engage in a sincere and respectable conversation.

[Business of Supply, October 19th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to say that we support the motion of the Liberal Party which states:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government inherited the best economic and fiscal position of any incoming federal government and has not demonstrated the need, value or wisdom of its announced expenditure cuts which unfairly disadvantage the most vulnerable groups in Canadian society.

Why do we support this motion? For all the reasons given by my colleague from Joliette and also because we feel that this government has a $13 billion surplus to work with. It could have cut operating costs, as mentioned by the member for Joliette, rather than programs that affect citizens.

The Conservatives have made what are generally called ideological cuts, and it is not impugning their motives to say so. They target the disadvantaged and minority groups. Mrs. Thatcher taught us a lot in this regard. The Conservatives target programs intended to counterbalance the government. They refuse to consider possible savings at National Defence. I wonder why. The question must be asked. Why is it that there were no cuts to the Department of National Defence when it is one of the departments with the largest budgets, about $14.7 billion in 2005-06?

During the election campaign in January, we saw the Conservative government still slowly progressing like masked turtles. That is what I told the media at the time. The Conservatives had not yet revealed their true face, but now we know a little more about it.

With all these cuts, the government is stirring up a lot of discontent in Quebec. If our friends across the aisle are incapable of seeing this, all I can say is they are out of touch with reality in Quebec.

The values of the Conservative Party are not the values of Quebeckers. The Quebec nation is about solidarity in all areas of life. We know that.

As for the Conservative government I was saying that it is going after the disadvantaged and minority groups. I will provide a few examples, beginning with the elimination of the court challenges program. This program gave minorities a voice: linguistic minorities, advocacy groups on behalf of the disadvantaged, homosexual rights groups, and so forth. The court challenges program funded groups that challenged the positions taken by current members of this government. Was the cutting of this program not a bad sign for all the groups opposed to the ideology embraced by this government? That is the question.

There is also the reduced budget for women’s groups, about which my colleague spoke earlier, and cuts to the support for volunteer groups and literacy.

The Conservatives decided to eliminate the Canada volunteerism initiative that was not supposed to end until next March.

The question I want to ask is whether the government will invest in another volunteer action program in its next budget. Stakeholders are waiting for some sign, some hint. If not, another question arises: will the government decide then to transfer the entire file to the Department of Human Resources and Social Development?

The Conservatives have cut funding to the public diplomacy fund, a program that promoted the support of cultural exportation, such as international tours for dance and theatre groups. Once again, they have not missed an opportunity to worry the cultural community.

On the front page of this morning's Le Devoir, Stéphane Baillargeon has written an excellent article on the concerns of the cultural and artistic communities in Quebec. I urge all members to read the article, for it is full of information.

With the announcement of $11.8 million in cuts to the public diplomacy fund, dance and theatre groups are wondering how this will affect the funding of international tours.

This is what I asked the heritage minister recently: Will these cuts put an end to funding for international tours for theatre and dance groups from Quebec and Canada, yes or no? She said no. I am sorry to say, however, that these groups are concerned that this was merely lip service.

I now come to the museum sector, which is very important to us. This sector has been awaiting a new museum policy for 25 years, as well as a budget increase, but unfortunately, the Conservative government just cut 25% from funding for museums.

I would like to read the Conservative Party promises from the last election campaign. This was on December 16, 2005. The Canadian Museum Association received a number of responses to questions it had asked the Conservative Party.

Here is the first question:

Does the Conservative Party of Canada support the development of a new Canadian Museums Policy to replace the current policy that dates back to the 1970s?

Here is the Conservatives' response:

Yes, the Conservative Party of Canada supports the development of a new museums policy for Canada. Canadians want to see the country's rich heritage protected and preserved for this generation and for future generations. It is not acceptable that this policy has not been updated and that Canadian museums have been neglected by the federal Liberal government. A Conservative government looks forward to working with the Canadian Museums Association to develop a revitalized and renewed vision for Canada's museums.

Here is the second question:

Does the Conservative Party support the CMA's principal objectives for a new policy:

Preserve Canada's national heritage, including artifacts of key importance held in museums across Canada;

Support museums in their role as important economic engines in the revitalization of cities and communities;

Increase engagement of citizens, visitors, volunteers, and members by greater outreach to community groups and the general public

Stabilize the capacity of museums to achieve these objectives through multi-year funding—

I could go on, because the commitments were tangible. And the result is that the Conservatives have made a 25% cut.

The Conservatives made a commitment to revitalize and support the arts, but it was a verbal commitment. In conclusion, with this government, women, minorities and culture have become problems. This government prides itself on supporting the arts and culture scene. It talks ad nauseum about providing quality assistance for creators and for heritage, but assistance has to be more than lip service. It has to be tangible and real and take the form of actions and funding.

We in the Bloc Québécois work tirelessly to promote and support the arts and culture, which the government has abandoned. The government's action, which amounts to a chainsaw massacre, is embarrassing in every respect. This government never stops talking about culture, yet it is destroying culture throughout Quebec and Canada.

We in the Bloc Québécois question the incompetence, the deceptions, the arrogance and the deviance of this government, which regularly sicken Quebeckers. We demand that this government meet Quebec's expectations. In anticipation of our emancipation, we will always faithfully reflect the widely held visions of Quebeckers in this House.

[Government Programs, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, my question is clear and simple and it calls for a clear and simple answer.

Will the announced cuts put an end to funding for international tours by dance troupes from Quebec and Canada—yes or no? It is simple.

[Government Programs, October 17th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, once again, this government has found the way to upset the cultural community. With the announcement of cuts worth $11.8 million from the public diplomacy fund, the dance and theatre communities are wondering whether this will affect funding for international tours.

Will the announced cuts put an end to funding for international tours by dance troupes from Quebec and Canada—yes or no?

[Culture, October 3rd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, culture is what enables humankind to create a framework for itself and for its development. It helps us to think for ourselves. Culture is key to having a sense of belonging to a community. It represents the essential fibre of Quebeckers, influencing our thoughts, words, actions and daily life, and enabling the development of individual members of the community.

Given its ideology intended to smother and stifle our museums, theatre, cinema, and creators, the Conservative government is undermining Quebec's hopes for the survival of its culture, here and around the world.

I would like to remind the House of a simple fact. Because it is culture that embodies the history and pulse of a society, soon, in a sovereign Quebec, culture will become both a major challenge and a collective priority.

[Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, October 2nd, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak about Bill C-284, an Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants). I will begin by giving an overview of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

First, I will remind members that, in keeping with its unconstitutional tendency to intrude into the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, the federal government has already stuck its nose into the field of education by providing Canada access grants.

There are two types of Canada access grants: assistance for students from low-income families and assistance for students with permanent disabilities. These grants are a type of bursary, and the grant amount depends on a number of criteria.

Let us consider, for example, the first form of grant: the Canada access grant for students from low-income families. The Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations, adopted under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, provide that the federal government or its intermediaries can provide initial Canada access grants to students from low-income families who are in their first year of post-secondary education.

The regulations also specify that the Canada access grant paid to a qualifying student can cover up to half of the student's tuition, based on need, but must not exceed $3,000.

The regulations set eligibility conditions that applicants must meet. They are as follows: the applicant must be in the first year of a program of studies and must never previously have been enrolled in a post-secondary program; the applicant must enroll in a post-secondary program of studies within four years after leaving secondary school; the program in which the applicant is enrolled must be offered by a recognized institution, must be at least two years in length and must lead to a certificate or diploma; the program must be full-time; the net income of the student's parents must fall within the range that qualifies them for the national child benefit supplement.

The second type of grant is the Canada access grant for students with permanent disabilities. Just like the Canada access grants for students from low-income families, it is the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations, passed under the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, that defines the list of criteria for being considered a student with a permanent disability. One of the conditions is the requirement to provide proof of the permanent disability by way of a medical certificate, for instance.

The regulations stipulate that the grant to an applicant with a permanent disability corresponds to the student's assessed need, up to a maximum of $2,000 a year, for every year he or she is eligible.

And now comes Bill C-284.

This bill is simple: it extends the availability of grants for low-income students from the first year of post secondary education to all years of post secondary education.

Since the criteria and terms for granting the Canada access grants for students are set out in the regulations, Bill C-284 integrates these criteria and terms directly in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and, accordingly, repeals them from the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations.

Bill C-284 is almost a carbon copy of sections 40.01, 40.02 and 40.03 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Regulations. These sections are to be included in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act and set out the conditions the students must meet to be eligible for a Canada access grant, as well as information on the size of the grants.

When the regulatory provisions were incorporated in the legislation, some words were changed in such a way as to renew the Canada access grants for students from low-income families. Subsection 14.2(2) shows this change. It says:

The amount of a grant made under this section to a qualifying student in a loan year shall not exceed the least of—

Subsection 14.2(1) would also be amended to remove the requirement that students be in the first year of their program of studies.

These two amendments make it possible to renew Canada access grants for qualifying students. These students may receive up to $3,000 for each year of their post-secondary program of studies.

Nevertheless, Bill C-284 has a number of flaws that should be reviewed in committee. I would like to point out some of them.

First, by incorporating regulatory provisions into an act, Bill C-284 would make subsequent amendments more difficult. Although an ideological Conservative government that cuts programs for under-privileged citizens might see this as a good thing, it would make it much more difficult to improve measures. Furthermore, changes to the access grant program for students, especially amendments affecting the indexation of amounts granted, would have to be legislated.

Second, there is no indexation mechanism for the amounts set out in the act. This is significant because $2,000 today will no longer be worth $2,000 in four, five or six years. Students' needs are of vital importance, but the money the federal government gives to education, primarily through the Canada social transfer, is not nearly enough, nor does it not enable Quebec to finance its post-secondary education system as much as it would like. We must ensure that the funds provided are adequate and take into account the rising cost of living. The lack of an indexation mechanism is therefore a serious shortcoming.

Third, Bill C-284 is just a band-aid, not a long-term solution. Until the fiscal imbalance is resolved, and until Quebec can count on additional own-source revenues of $30.9 billion per year, the post-secondary education system will continue to be underfunded.

Our position is simple. The Bloc Québécois will support Bill C-284 in principle so that it can go to committee for further discussion of the amounts to be offered to students and the absence of an indexation mechanism.

The Bloc Québécois is fully aware that Bill C-284 is acceptable only because the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act contains a clause for opting out with compensation. This legislation constitutes an infringement on a jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Yet Bill C-284 does not help Quebec and the other provinces provide quality education, because it does not give them the means to do so. It makes students pay for part of the cost of their post-secondary education, but does not improve the quality of instruction.

The best solution to help students, and the solution recommended by the Bloc Québécois, involves a considerable increase in direct federal transfer payments to Quebec and the provinces until the fiscal imbalance issue is resolved. In Quebec, the government, students and educational institutions issued a joint statement to the effect that transfer payments must be increased to $4.9 billion a year. It is because of the fiscal imbalance, created by the federal government itself, that Ottawa must now help students financially so that they can access post-secondary education, since transfers to the provinces for education have been considerably reduced.

To conclude, I would remind the House that, fortunately, section 14 of the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act gives those provinces that wish to administer their own loans and scholarships program the right to opt out with compensation. This is the case for Quebec, which has its own program.

[Culture Days, September 28th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, September 29 and 30 and October 1 mark the 10th anniversary of Quebec's culture days. More than 1,800 free activities in 289 municipalities will bring together the general public and artists and creators.

Quebec's culture days provide me with another opportunity to remind this government of the vital importance of culture in the lives of people and societies.

To attack our culture the way the Conservative government does is to break up the foundation of our social connection, to destroy what makes sense in our existence and our identity.

What lack of concern, what thoughtlessness.

[Canadian Heritage, September 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, last December 16, the Conservative Party made a clear commitment in writing to provide stable, predictable, long-term funding for museums.

Today, rather than keeping its promise, it is doing the exact opposite by cutting funding for museums to the tune of $4.6 million.

How can the heritage minister justify that her government, after making a promise in writing, can so flagrantly go back on that promise? It is appalling.

[Department of Canadian Heritage, September 21st, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, in response to a number of cultural groups who have waited eight long months for her to act, the best the Minister of Canadian Heritage could do was accuse them of waste and mismanagement.

Rather than make unfounded accusations to justify her failure to act, can the minister tell the House which programs she thinks are responsible for this waste and mismanagement?